Advice on ring setting

[claus10]

Hello!

I'm in the process of planning a surprise engagement ring for my partner. I posted a thread when looking for the stone and received some great feedback which was really reassuring and helpful in making the decision on the stone!

I'm hoping to pick your minds again and ask a few questions about the ring setting.

This is a link to the stone I purchased:

0.82 Carat oval diamond

This oval cut 0.82 carat E color vvs1 clarity has a diamond grading report from GIA

www.jamesallen.com

I've attached a couple of images to the post as well, but please excuse the poor quality my partner was lurking!!



Before receiving the stone I had planned to mount it in a simple basket setting with tapered shoulders (getting thicker as they approach the stone) with 4-5 pave diamonds either channel set or pave set on the shoulders of the ring.

After receiving the stone I'm not sure of my original idea. This is because of the length to width ratio of the stone - it is on the longer side with the ratio being 1.56 and so I am not convinced a tapered band would be as good for it as this may not highlight the shape of the stone.

Here is a link to a video which I was basing my design on:

This is a more minimalist design which I also really like:

The particulars of the design:

Simplicity is key, her jewellery tastes has always been 'less is more'.
I want to have it made in platinum for durability and longevity. And also as it's hypoallergenic.
I'm planning for this to be a surprise.
She is quite active and has a hands on job and so the stone must be set quite low.


If I were to stick with my original idea (as per the first video) - is it possible to have channel set stones look dainty? A lot of what I have seen in images the metal is too thick next to the the smaller stones.

I'm meeting the jeweller next week to discuss the design and want to be prepared with some good ideas. And hopefully have considered some options which I hadn't thought of before.

I'm not sure I've articulated my thoughts very well so please ask for any clarification/more information as required.

If there is any other setting style that would suit a longer stone please advise me about it!

Thanks,
Claus

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Congratulations! I like the idea of the tapered ring, but I always imagined that tapered meant the ring gets thinner as it approaches the stone, not thicker. Is that what you meant?

A simple (non pave) tapered band (thinner near stone) would also look pretty and highlight the length of your stone (make it look longer). If you do want to go for sparkle on the band, the channel set is more hardy than pave, but I think pave is a bit prettier. I don’t know the proper term for it, but maybe they can make a pave ring with a thin “lip” of metal conforming to the shape of the stone? I know I’ve seen that before somewhere.

 

[claus10]

Thanks!

Originally I was looking at a taper which got slightly thicker towards the stone - the rationale was that as you look from the side you're being gradually led to the main stone if that makes sense?

Yeah I was always going to go for the pave but since I started to think more and do more research about the design I'm concerned about the durability. I don't want it to become something my partner has to consciously think about. So she should be able to enjoy it without fear of stones falling out etc. This is why I started looking at channel settings!

Do you mean something like this: https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...eek-line-pave-diamond-engagement-ring-422.htm

I do like the above design and will think about it. This has a sort of taper which gets more narrow as you get to the main stone and has what looks like pave set stones in a channel?

Does anyone have any experience of how thin the metal surrounding the channel can be before it becomes 'unsafe'?

When thinking about the ring in terms of everyday use is there anything I should be considering in order to make it more comfortable to wear? For example how should the inside of the ring be finished? And does the thickness of the band affect how comfortable it will wear?

Or should the main focus just be the aesthetic?

 

[tyty333]

I think you are looking for the term "reverse taper" where it gets wider as it comes up to the stone. I think when you have an oval that is
on the extra-long side a reverse taper or a split shank helps the eye to flow smoothly from the shank to the stone.

A taper (regular) will accentuate the longness of the stone...which in a really long stone you may not want to do.

On the other hand, it looks like you are also looking for something thin and all metal?

Does anyone have any experience of how thin the metal surrounding the channel can be before it becomes 'unsafe'?
It can be thin. The "safeness" really comes from the overall thickness of the shank/band. That Leon Mege video you posted
is not channel set. It appears to be "bead set" and is safe as far as having pave in a shank. IMO safer than
channel set.
You can see bead set in the blue below and channel set in the green below.


If she is really busy with her hands than a plain metal shank may be your best bet. (She can do a diamond
wedding band if she wishes for a little extra bling).

A split shank would be something like this to not accentuate the length as much.

14K White Gold Twisted Shank Contemporary Solitaire

This contemporary solitaire features a rounded crossover band with an integrated basket designed to securely display the center diamond or gemstone of your choice.

www.jamesallen.com

As far as a thin solitaire band, 1.8 to 2 mm is about the thinnest we suggest. What size finger does she have?

Also, take note of how the head of the stone attaches to the shank if you want the wedding band to set up next
to the engagement band without a gap (a lot of people want this...some dont mind the gap).

Not sure if I have answered all your questions...post them if you have more.

 

[claus10]

Thanks for your post and apologies for my confusion with terminology!

I definitely meant reverse taper!

On reflection having the band get thinner may distort the overall proportions of the ring by making it look to narrow. I think the goal is to create something which looks good, gets the best out of the stone and is practical for day to day use.

Her finger length is around 7.5cm (around 3 inches - I discreetly measured her finger length while measuring her arm for a top she was buying lol). She is a size K which translates to 5.5 USA I think.
I was thinking the absolute maximum to go for in terms of the width of the band is 3mm. But I think 2mm-2.5mm would look much nicer!

When you say the safeness comes from the shank/band - do you mean the depth of the metal? I have looked at lots of images where this transitions from being thin at the base of the band and thickens towards the shoulders and head of the ring. Are there any rough dimensions which I should have in mind regarding this?

The overall aesthetic should be quite delicate and dainty, this would match her style best. I'm trying to decide between a plain metal band and having side stones. I really like the aesthetic of the leon mege ring if I'm honest - but not sure how it will translate from a 3 carat stone to a 0.8 carat in terms of proportions!

Thanks for clarifying regarding the setting - I think the bead bright setting looks better than the channel settings as I don't care for the spaces inbtween the stones. I would be open to having channel set stones with cushion/princess cut stones, but the bead and bright setting may be the best option! I will have to read a bit more about it.

I also like the spit shank idea too, I will have a look for some images of these for ideas. The negative space around the shoulders makes it look more delicate. Thanks!

Regarding the wedding band - I haven't really thought about this, but suspect she will want it to sit together without a gap. How much space does there need to be below the edge of the oval stone to accommodate a wedding band? I have just done a search and seen that there is an option to have the wedding band designed to fit around the oval stone, so there are a couple of options to do this in a nice way!

Should the wedding band match the engagement ring in terms of their depth profiles?

Is there any factors I should consider with respect to how comfortable the ring will be when fitted?

The jeweller I am planning to use has good reviews, they finish the jewellery by hand, but their process of making it is using a wax model which is then cast. I think this is the mainstay of how rings are made nowadays? The cost of having this done locally is comparable (obviously the more complex you make it the more it will end up costing) to many of the settings available on jamesallen and bluenile.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, it is much appreciated!

 

[mommylawyer]

I think the split shank would be very pretty with your oval diamond. If you want to give the ring a little something extra without adding diamonds, you could consider braided or etched platinum, like these:

Braided Cathedral Solitaire Diamond Engagement Ring in Platinum | Blue Nile

A show of strength and beauty is evident from every angle of this cathedral-style setting, so-called because it lifts your diamond to capture the best possible light. The braid motif adds compelling texture in this truly remarkable piece of jewelry.

www.bluenile.com

Hand-Engraved Solitaire Engagement Ring in Platinum | Blue Nile

Exquisitely hand-engraved, this engagement ring features an intricate motif to showcase your center diamond in enduring platinum.

www.bluenile.com

 

[mommylawyer]

Thanks for your post and apologies for my confusion with terminology!

I definitely meant reverse taper!

On reflection having the band get thinner may distort the overall proportions of the ring by making it look to narrow. I think the goal is to create something which looks good, gets the best out of the stone and is practical for day to day use.

Her finger length is around 7.5cm (around 3 inches - I discreetly measured her finger length while measuring her arm for a top she was buying lol). She is a size K which translates to 5.5 USA I think.
I was thinking the absolute maximum to go for in terms of the width of the band is 3mm. But I think 2mm-2.5mm would look much nicer!

When you say the safeness comes from the shank/band - do you mean the depth of the metal? I have looked at lots of images where this transitions from being thin at the base of the band and thickens towards the shoulders and head of the ring. Are there any rough dimensions which I should have in mind regarding this?

The overall aesthetic should be quite delicate and dainty, this would match her style best. I'm trying to decide between a plain metal band and having side stones. I really like the aesthetic of the leon mege ring if I'm honest - but not sure how it will translate from a 3 carat stone to a 0.8 carat in terms of proportions!

Thanks for clarifying regarding the setting - I think the bead bright setting looks better than the channel settings as I don't care for the spaces inbtween the stones. I would be open to having channel set stones with cushion/princess cut stones, but the bead and bright setting may be the best option! I will have to read a bit more about it.

I also like the spit shank idea too, I will have a look for some images of these for ideas. The negative space around the shoulders makes it look more delicate. Thanks!

Regarding the wedding band - I haven't really thought about this, but suspect she will want it to sit together without a gap. How much space does there need to be below the edge of the oval stone to accommodate a wedding band? I have just done a search and seen that there is an option to have the wedding band designed to fit around the oval stone, so there are a couple of options to do this in a nice way!

Should the wedding band match the engagement ring in terms of their depth profiles?

Is there any factors I should consider with respect to how comfortable the ring will be when fitted?

The jeweller I am planning to use has good reviews, they finish the jewellery by hand, but their process of making it is using a wax model which is then cast. I think this is the mainstay of how rings are made nowadays? The cost of having this done locally is comparable (obviously the more complex you make it the more it will end up costing) to many of the settings available on jamesallen and bluenile.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions, it is much appreciated!

Regarding comfort, most of my rings are created/finished by hand by my jeweler, and they are very comfortable. Whether the wedding band matches the engagement ring in style and width will be a choice for your significant other. Once you have the engagement ring, you will probably shop together for the wedding bands, and she can choose what she likes. Here's a picture of different engagement rings with various wedding bands.

 

[mommylawyer]

I really like your first choice, by the way. I have my champagne diamond set in a similar mounting, and it has proven to be very durable and comfortable. I have a matching platinum band, and I've had no trouble with the diamonds coming loose. I wear my rings everywhere: beach, jungle, ocean, travel, etc.

 

[claus10]

Thanks for your posts, you have a beautiful collection!

My eyes were immediately drawn to that ring in particular, it is stunning! Do you have an image of it from the side that you would be happy to share so I would be able to see how the stone is mounted onto the shank?

In terms of the comfort, are you saying it is completely dependent on how the ring is finished? So the dimensions have a very limited role if any at all?

Thanks again!

 

[mommylawyer]

I don't think comfort will be an issue. Several of my rings were made the way you described--by hand with a mold, and they are very comfortable. I will say that my thicker bands, such as the three stone are somewhat less comfortable than the reverse tapered champagne diamond band. It's very comfortable. I'll post more pictures soon.

 

[mommylawyer]

 

[bludiva]

I was thinking the absolute maximum to go for in terms of the width of the band is 3mm. But I think 2mm-2.5mm would look much nicer!

i think you could do 2-2.5mm channel setting and it would still be very sturdy. i think part of the reason these settings are so durable is the walls that keeps the stones and prongs from being knocked around.

congrats & good luck. very slick how you discreetly measured your fiancee-to-be's finger

 

[claus10]

Thanks for sharing! It is a beautiful ring, the stone looks like it has been woven into a bow!
I also like how you have paired it with a similar band, I think it works really well together.

 

[claus10]

i think you could do 2-2.5mm channel setting and it would still be very sturdy. i think part of the reason these settings are so durable is the walls that keeps the stones and prongs from being knocked around.

congrats & good luck. very slick how you discreetly measured your fiancee-to-be's finger

Thanks! I think the decision will be between the bead bright setting and the channel setting. Hopefully I'll be able to see some in person when I meet the jeweller to decide what to go for!

 

[claus10]

Thanks for all of the feedback, I really appreciate it!

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Thanks!

Originally I was looking at a taper which got slightly thicker towards the stone - the rationale was that as you look from the side you're being gradually led to the main stone if that makes sense?

Yeah I was always going to go for the pave but since I started to think more and do more research about the design I'm concerned about the durability. I don't want it to become something my partner has to consciously think about. So she should be able to enjoy it without fear of stones falling out etc. This is why I started looking at channel settings!

Do you mean something like this: https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...eek-line-pave-diamond-engagement-ring-422.htm

I do like the above design and will think about it. This has a sort of taper which gets more narrow as you get to the main stone and has what looks like pave set stones in a channel?

Does anyone have any experience of how thin the metal surrounding the channel can be before it becomes 'unsafe'?

When thinking about the ring in terms of everyday use is there anything I should be considering in order to make it more comfortable to wear? For example how should the inside of the ring be finished? And does the thickness of the band affect how comfortable it will wear?

Or should the main focus just be the aesthetic?

I like this better: https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...tani-1rz3447-diamond-engagement-ring-3970.htm but I’d prefer a more dramatic taper than this, ideally.

I don’t own any channel set rings, hopefully someone who has more experience will be able to weigh in!

The most uncomfortable part of a ring is the thickness between the fingers, and a comfort edge band would be more comfortable than a knife edge, in that sense, since there’s less pressure on either finger on the sides. So if, for example, you decide to go for a knife edge instead of a band with pave, you should probably request that only the top half be knife edge and the rest be comfort fit.

 

[mommylawyer]

Thanks for all of the feedback, I really appreciate it!

You're welcome. Very excited for you.

 

[claus10]

I like this better: https://www.whiteflash.com/engageme...tani-1rz3447-diamond-engagement-ring-3970.htm but I’d prefer a more dramatic taper than this, ideally.

I don’t own any channel set rings, hopefully someone who has more experience will be able to weigh in!

The most uncomfortable part of a ring is the thickness between the fingers, and a comfort edge band would be more comfortable than a knife edge, in that sense, since there’s less pressure on either finger on the sides. So if, for example, you decide to go for a knife edge instead of a band with pave, you should probably request that only the top half be knife edge and the rest be comfort fit.

Thanks for your post!

I think you're right, and it makes sense for either setting style, maybe it is worth stopping either the pave/channel/bead bright/knife edge setting as it approaches the adjacent fingers! I expect you get the aesthetic benefit this way without losing the comfort. Thanks!

 

[kb1gra]

The cartier 1895 is the traditional reverse taper, bead set mounting. I have one from James Allen, it is this one: https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...d-inspired-diamond-engagement-ring-item-41042

I've had it for over four years and while I don't wear any one ring daily, it has been incredibly durable.

 

[claus10]

Thanks for sharing! I looked at this setting yesterday, and I really like it. The website states it is 2.1mm (presumably before the taper begins). Would you be happy to share any images of how it looks when worn?

Glad to hear it has served you well over the last few years!

 

[claus10]

Also just thought what colour of side stone can I get away with when the main stone is E coloured?

Is there also a minimum cut and clarity to consider with the side stones?

 

[mommylawyer]

I'm not an expert, but I think you may want to stay in the E/F range. However, on my three-stone ring, my center stone is a G and the side stones are E/F. I can't tell the difference, personally. I don't think you would want to go lower than G in color, though.

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Thanks for your post!

I think you're right, and it makes sense for either setting style, maybe it is worth stopping either the pave/channel/bead bright/knife edge setting as it approaches the adjacent fingers! I expect you get the aesthetic benefit this way without losing the comfort. Thanks!

Sorry I didn’t realise the thread had gone in a completely different direction from when I stopped reading and when I replied, haha. I think a split shank could also look lovely, I like that better than reverse taper (but that’s just a personal preference). I like very long ovals, so I would emphasize the length.

 

[claus10]

Sorry I didn’t realise the thread had gone in a completely different direction from when I stopped reading and when I replied, haha. I think a split shank could also look lovely, I like that better than reverse taper (but that’s just a personal preference). I like very long ovals, so I would emphasize the length.

No worries, I'm still researching designs to be honest. I also like split shanks. I think what I will end up doing is taking 2-3 completely different designs to the jeweller and have them drawn up using their software. Following this I will either choose one or continue to refine the process until I get it right!

I originally chose that stone because it was longer (I think it stood out to me for this reason) and so I want to give it a setting which compliments its characteristics as much as possible. My only concern with emphasising the length of the stone is (in my opinion) my partner's fingers are slender and relatively long and so it may not be right for her. I think it will not be possible to tell until I have some draft images of the various ideas.

Thanks!

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

No worries, I'm still researching designs to be honest. I also like split shanks. I think what I will end up doing is taking 2-3 completely different designs to the jeweller and have them drawn up using their software. Following this I will either choose one or continue to refine the process until I get it right!

I originally chose that stone because it was longer (I think it stood out to me for this reason) and so I want to give it a setting which compliments its characteristics as much as possible. My only concern with emphasising the length of the stone is (in my opinion) my partner's fingers are slender and relatively long and so it may not be right for her. I think it will not be possible to tell until I have some draft images of the various ideas.

Thanks!

I think your idea of getting different designs drawn up is a great one! If she has long slender fingers I think a delicate setting with the long stone would look lovely. I don’t think you can go wrong with this, she has the kind of hand that suits every style!

Best of luck

 

[kb1gra]

Thanks for sharing! I looked at this setting yesterday, and I really like it. The website states it is 2.1mm (presumably before the taper begins). Would you be happy to share any images of how it looks when worn?

Glad to hear it has served you well over the last few years!

I don't have any on my new phone, but I can take some later today. Mine is set with a round, but I think it would look classy with an oval as well.

 

[kb1gra]

Thanks for sharing! I looked at this setting yesterday, and I really like it. The website states it is 2.1mm (presumably before the taper begins). Would you be happy to share any images of how it looks when worn?

Glad to hear it has served you well over the last few years!

These are not the worlds greatest pictures, but I haven't been wearing many rings due to the heat - still, hopefully it conveys what an elegant setting it is. The gradual taper is really nice.

 

[mommylawyer]

I just found these pictures on my laptop. I must have been considering an oval diamond at some point instead of the champagne diamond. Thought you might be interested. I cannot recall any information about the oval diamond.

 

[claus10]

These are not the worlds greatest pictures, but I haven't been wearing many rings due to the heat - still, hopefully it conveys what an elegant setting it is. The gradual taper is really nice.

Thanks for sharing! Looks lovely!

 

[claus10]

I just found these pictures on my laptop. I must have been considering an oval diamond at some point instead of the champagne diamond. Thought you might be interested. I cannot recall any information about the oval diamond.

This setting suits an oval stone really well as well! Must have been a tough choice. I think it will be about getting the proportions right because the stone I've purchased is likely considerably smaller.

I'm thinking to have the jeweller draw up a design like this, one with a tapered plain metal band and a split shank and then decide which suits the stone and the finger the best!

Thanks!